Academy of Ideas: John Stuart Mill On Liberty

Source: Academy of Ideas-

Source:The New Democrat

When I think of liberty, I don’t think of the liberty to do whatever the hell I want without any consequences. I think of individual liberty, self-determination, free will, the ability for people to make their own decisions and make their own beds, just as long as they also sleep in them. That individual liberty is exactly that, for the individual. That the individual has liberty over their own lives, but not the liberty to manage someone else’s and certainly not to hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Not talking about anarchy, but individual liberty, balanced by rule of law there to protect the innocent from predators and to handle the predators who hurt the innocent.

Individual liberty, again is exactly that. Not talking about economic freedom, or personal freedom, but individual freedom which covers both, plus political freedom. The ability to run for office and for voters to pick from a wide variety of candidates and to publicly weigh in on them. As well as to weigh in on government policy and potential future government policies. This blog covers freedom of choice a lot and has a whole section dealing with that. But that is exactly what freedom of choice is. The freedom for people to make their own choices in life, but then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

To me as a Liberal, a free society is an educated society. Without education, liberty doesn’t exist. So what you need for liberty to exist and be real is for the public to be educated. And once they’re educated they’ll have the tools and freedom to make the right decisions with their own lives. From where to work, where to live, what health insurance plan they should have, how to invest their money, whether, or not they should gamble or not, to smoke, or not to smoke and that includes marijuana, when it get married, or if to get married and who they should marry if anyone and even things like prostitution and pornography. Just as long as they know what they’re getting into before they make those decisions and the consequences that come with those decisions.

Now if you’re lets say a Religious, or Christian, or even a Conservative-Muslim in America and tend to look at politics from lets say a religious, or traditional perspective, the way I just described liberty probably sounds immoral and dangerous. That I want to destroy America and our traditional moral values and everything and perhaps even have anarchy. And if you’re part of the Paternalist-Left in America, people who I and others both Liberals and Libertarians call nanny statists, because you believe in the collective over the individual, you probably also see my politics as dangerous. Because I’m calling for free will and free choice and you don’t tend to trust the individual. And want a big government big enough to even protect people from themselves.

But that is not what I’m calling for all. Something that both so-called Progressives and Religious-Conservatives have in common is the belief in education and that people should be educated and intelligent so they can live well and make good decisions. The only thing is that I take that a step forward and not just call for an educated society, because without an educated society you can’t have a free society. But then I also say that free individuals should have the education, power and liberty to use that power to make the best decisions for themselves. That you put out all the information there and let free people make their own decisions with that knowledge and hold them responsible for their own individual decisions. Individual freedom and responsibility.
Source:Academy of Ideas

The Onion: 'Candidate Profile- Donald Trump'

Source:The Onion- Donald J. Trump (Nationalist reality TV star, New York) God has blessed us by only producing one of him.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Billionaire real estate mogul and television personality Donald Trump announced Tuesday plans to run in the 2016 presidential election, marking the first time he will formally seek the Republican nomination after floating the idea in several previous election cycles. Here are some key facts to know about Trump... 

From The Onion

I’ve actually sort of gone out-of-my-way to not comment on Donald Trump for president for several reasons. 

One, just about everything I would’ve said about him most of it, actually all of it negative has already been said. Even by Fox News to the point that The Donald has added Megyn Kelly to his women’s enemies list. 

The fact that the Republican Party would have a joke like The Donald who is only able to run for president, because he’s a billionaire, just shows you how big of a joke the Republican Party is right now. I mean, their frontrunner’s last name is Bush. I’m sure Jeb is a good guy and all and probably would’ve been successful in life if his name was Kowalski and he grew up in Pittsburgh the son of a truck driver. But he’s the frontrunner, because he’s a Republican and his last name is Bush.

Don Trump, ( does anyone else call The Donald, Don )  is not an idiot and he’s not crazy. A big asshole, no argument here. An egomaniac, I’m still looking for a bigger egomaniac. Actually, I stopped looking when I first saw The Donald. He’s a guy who simply wants attention and for whatever he’s involved in to simply be about him. 

The Donald is a one-man entertainment and comedy show who has no idea what he would do as president and has nothing to run on as far as what he’s in favor of and what he would do. I mean, the guy is a Republican, who is supposedly anti-immigration, even though he’s probably hired thousands of illegal immigrants. And those people not being from Ireland, or Britain, but Mexico and other Latin American countries.

How do you take someone like that seriously for president. He wants to be President of the United States and talks about our eighteen-trillion-dollar national debt and two of his companies have gone bankrupt. So ironically that sort of makes him an expert on our bankruptcy laws. What is The Donald’s message on fiscal policy? Don’t run the United States the way he ran his companies. Because it will fail and instead of filling for bankruptcy and being bailed out by taxpayers, we’ll try to get bailed out by China, or Saudi Arabia?

I did see the Republican debate on FNC on Thursday. And actually I think the FNC panel did a very good job questioning the candidates. I was expecting to see batting practice at a home run derby from the questioners. And see them loft up a lot of hanging curves and softballs at the candidates. For them to well hit out of the ballpark and look good. But as I was watching the debate I was sort of thinking to myself how would Saturday Night Live play this. And looking at The Donald, you don’t need to see SNL doing their version of this debate, because what they would’ve done is what we saw on Thursday.

The panel, asking The Donald very tough questions and trying to put him on the spot. With Trump coming back with some wisecracks to get the audience behind him. This is what running for President of the United States the most important job in the world is to The Donald. His own reality show and all about him and nothing else. With every network that covers politics picking up the series. 

The reason why The Donald is in first place in a single a baseball league (as far as the quality of talent when you’re talking about the quality of candidates that they have) is because the state of the Republican Party right now. Not because of how great a presidential candidate that The Donald is, or his qualifications for being President of the United States.

VOA News: Mil Arcega- 'US Economy Adds 215K Jobs in July'

Source:VOA News- Gad Levanon, from The Conference Board.

Source:The New Democrat

"Yet more signs of an improving job market.  The U.S. Labor Department says employers added 215,000 jobs last month.  That’s the third consecutive month of job gains above 200,000 following weaker than expected job growth earlier in the year.  While the unemployment rate held steady at 5.3 percent, analysts say the July job gains increase pressure on the Federal Reserve to start raising interest rates soon.  Mil Arcega has more. Originally published at:VOA News."

Source:Hawaii Tribune Herald- Americans working.

From VOA News

The fact that the Federal Reserve is considering raising interest rates, tells me as a non-economist that the American economy is starting to do well. That people are going back to work, that their incomes are rising and spending money.

The Fed, has kept interest rates at practically nothing since 2008 when the Great Recession started, because the economy for most of this period was pretty weak. 2010 and 2014 would be exceptions to this, but by in large economic growth has been fairly weak since the Great Recession even with job growth being steady and solid since 2010. Which tells me we can forget about another recession at least in the short-term.

Congress, has lately has started to become helpful with the economy. They passed another short-term extension to the highway program. The Senate, passed a a six-year highway bill last week that is fully paid for. The House, is going to take up that bill and hopefully pass their own bill when Congress comes back from recess in September. So we're starting to see some real healthy signs with the economy.

Even though the economy actually shrunk in the first quarter this year, the economy by in-large is ready to do well and hopefully take off again. And do well for the rest of 2015 and hopefully take off next year.

Kids going back to school in September so there will be a lot of back to school sells for the next couple of months. As well as this being August and Americans still vacationing. And then once we get through September and October we're into the holiday season. And then you may actually see the Fed raise interest rates.

So I believe there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the American economy right now. And with a healthy economy would also mean the budget deficit will continue to fall and we'll see more investment in America as a result.

Life & Liberty Magazine: Julie Borowski: Should Pro-Life People be Forced to Subsidize Planned Parenthood?

Source:Washington Free Beacon- The Morning Joe & Mika.

Source:The New Democrat

With all due respect to Julie Borowski over at Life and Liberty Magazine who I personally don’t know and just saw her name for the first time a couple of days ago, she poses a silly question about Planned Parenthood. If her question about whether pro-life people should be forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood is serious, than so are questions like should anti-death penalty advocates be forced to pay for the death penalty of convicted murderers. Or should anarchists, be forced to pay for law enforcement. Should pacifists be forced to pay for the military. Should isolationists and people who are against foreign aid be forced to pay for foreign aid. And I could go indefinitely. But don’t worry, because in the interest of time I won’t.

When you live in a liberal democracy especially the size of the United States where we pick our leaders by majority vote in most cases and when each of us only have one vote, you’re not always going to get who you voted for. Because sometimes your candidates the people you voted for don’t win. Which means the opposition comes to power and if they have the power to do what they want, or win some political battles perhaps through compromise, they will get to set policy. And that even means establishing policy and laws that others disapprove of. Whether it is continue to fund law foreign enforcement, fund foreign aid, continue the death penalty with taxpayer funds, continue to finance corporate welfare with taxpayer funds and yes continue to fund Planned Parenthood. Which does perform abortions, but without taxpayer funds.

This question about whether the pro-life community should be forced to fund Planned Parenthood with their taxes, sort of reminds me of the question that Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians like to pose about the safety net, or the so-called social contract. And they say why should they be forced to pay for something that they didn’t personally sign and approve of when it was passed. Well, again a country is a community we all have to play by the rules that the leadership who are hired by the people put in place. And if we don’t like the rules that are put in place we can always vote out if we have a majority support the leaders who enforce the rules. But to try to put out this argument that you don’t like the rules so you’re not going to follow them, is quite frankly silly.
Source:Washington Free Beacon

Keith Hughes: 'Roe vs Wade Explained- US History Review'

Source:Keith Hughes- With a look at Roe Vs. Wade. .

Source: The New Democrat

"Why is abortion legal in the United States? What is the Roe v Wade decision? A direct explanation of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision which legalized abortion across the country without any of the politics, bias or controversy."

From Keith Hughes

Roe V Wade, is one of the most important decisions ever decided in the United States when it comes to women’s health and individual liberty really for everyone in the country both female and male. Because it is about when can the state regardless of governmental level can come in and tell someone: “no. You can’t do that to yourself, or for yourself. Government knows best over the individual.”

Whether you’re pro-choice, or pro-life ( actually anti-abortion ) I believe people make that decision based on when they believe life starts. With Christians, especially fundamentalists Christians, life begins at conception: “Once a woman is pregnant, she is now carrying life and because of that she’s carrying someone who should be protected as much as anyone who has been born.” According to Catholics and other Christians. If you’re pro-choice, again regardless of what your religious affiliation may be, or if you’re Atheist, or Agnostic, life begins for you when the fetus is already born. And once the fetus is born then it's a baby that deserves the same human rights including the right to life as everyone else who has been born.

That is really what the abortion debate is about. When does life start and again depending on when you believe life starts will determine your position on abortion. Now for me as an Agnostic, I guess I have a little more freedom to make my own decision and take my own position here. Because I’m not constrained by religious affiliations and beliefs. Wasn’t raised in a Catholic, Protestant, or any other religious family. So for me it becomes and individual liberty and role of government issue. Not a religious issue and it comes down for me who gets to decide in this case. And whether government and others can, or not force people who don’t share their religious to live by them on one of the most important decisions that a women will ever make.

As a Liberal, I’m pro-choice on practically everything short of someone hurting another innocent person. And if you want to call abortion hurting an innocent person by murdering an innocent baby, I can’t stop you, but I also don’t have to listen to you either. I’m 98-99% pro-choice on abortion. The 1-2% on this very key issues comes down to public financing of abortions which I’m against.

I agree with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy on this issue for the most part. That government should be completely out of abortion. But then he says government, meaning taxpayers should pay for abortions and not just when the life, or health of the mother is involved. So he contradicts himself there and speaks out of two mouths, which is actually common in Congress. But I take Senator Murphy’s words on abortion literally as far as government shouldn’t be involved in abortion period. Short of making sure they are safe for women to have them. But they, meaning taxpayers don’t have to pay for them.

As a Liberal, pro-choice is exactly that. The right for the individual to decide for them self what is best for them when it comes to their own life. Doesn’t give them the right to make decisions for other people like intentionally to take their own life even not in self-defense. Or intentionally hurting another person. And abortion similar to a whole host of issues that also have something to do with privacy and personal freedom comes down to this question. Who gets to decide? The government, or the individual when it comes to a woman’s productive rights including when she should give birth, or not.

For me since life doesn’t begin at conception, but when the fetus actually becomes a baby and is born that is when their right to life begins. And when they get the same right to life as someone who is in their forties, or whatever their age may be. Government, except when it comes to making sure abortions as safe as possible, should be completely out it. Even funding abortions, except to save the life and health of the mother.

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope: U.S. Representative John F. Kennedy (1952)

Source:CBS News- U.S. Representative John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) talking to The Longines Chronoscope in 1952.

Source:The New Democrat

John F. Kennedy, at this point was Representative John F. Kennedy who was completing his third and last term in the House of Representatives. And was running for Senate against a moderate-conservative Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Jack Kennedy, was only thirty-five at this point and would become one of the youngest people ever elected to the U.S. Senate at thirty-five. JFK, served a total of fourteen-years in Congress both in the House and Senate and yet he was forty-three when he left Congress for the presidency in 1961. He is someone who wanted to move up quickly in American politics and not stay in one office for very long.

The House, was too small of a platform especially if you’re last name is Kennedy. So it’s a little hard to believe that JFK would’ve been someone who would’ve spent 20-30 years in the House even if it meant being Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or serving in the Democratic Leadership. I think JFK like his brother Ted, would’ve made a terrific U.S. Senator if he wanted it and served four, or five terms in the Senate after the House and completed his Congressional service and even public service in the Senate. And perhaps would’ve ended up chairing a couple of committees and maybe even becoming Democratic Leader in the Senate.

Jack Kennedy, didn’t have a very good record in the House. He was bored there and had a hard time dealing with being one of 435 Representatives there and a back bencher at that. And wasn’t a very serious Representative who missed a lot of floor votes and committee hearings and not known for passing any legislation. He wasn’t much better as a Senator at least in his first term. But he writes a book Profiles in Courage in 1956, he marries Jacqueline Kennedy and his name is always in the news and starts to draw a serious following in the Democratic Party and becomes serious as a U.S. Senator. Which is how his name starts to get floated around as a possible presidential candidate. Who almost becomes Adlai Stevenson’s vice presidential nominee in 1956. And after that he when he puts most of his focus into becoming President of the United States.

The New Republic: The Long March to Medicare

Source:The New Republic- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) signing Medicare into law in 1965.

Source:The New Democrat

The fiftieth anniversary of the most successful government health insurance program in the country, if not the most successful health insurance program period. No other health insurer has provided more health insurance to more Americans than Medicare. And perhaps to more people in the world than Medicare. My issues with Medicare is not that the program exists at all, which is the libertarian argument against it. Or that it is a government-run health insurance program. But my issues is with how the program was set up. And the reason why it was set up, is because that is the best that Democratic Congress with Republican help from the minority could come up with in 1965.

We are a huge country that is between two of the largest oceans in the world. And that is just the mainland United States and back in 1965 we were a country roughly one-eighty-million people or so. And today we are pushing three-hundred-twenty-million people. And yet we set up two new huge health insurance programs that are to be run by one central authority in this huge country. Instead of bringing in the states to run their share of this program for their state. Or to create one health insurer that everyone could be eligible for. Not forced on them, but have a new public health insurer that everyone could sign up for and pay into if they choose to. Along with putting money down along with their employer so they are guaranteed health insurance in their senior years.

The original Affordable Care Act of 2009-10 that was passed by the House of Representatives in fall of 2009 had a public option in it for Medicare. Meaning people under Medicare age could sign up and pay into Medicare before they retire and before they are 65. That amendment was taken out of the Senate in the early spring of 2010. So the final bill that was passed on March of didn’t have the public option in it. So Medicare is still the largest health insurer in the country if not world and yet it only covers seniors. The least healthiest population of the country and makes it very expensive to run and pay for. You give middle-age and young adults and their kids the option to be part of Medicare and you would see millions of Americans sign up for Medicare. Which would bring down the costs of Medicare, because you would have young healthy Americans as part of the program.

Yes Medicare has been a very successful program because it has guaranteed health insurance to millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn’t have had it. Or would’ve ended up moving to the poor house, or having to sell everything that has value to them in order to get health care in their senior years. But this program could be so much better and so much more cost-effective and not so top-down. And allow for middle-age and young adults to cover themselves and their health insurance through Medicare. As well as similar to Medicaid bring the states in and allow for them to set up their own Medicare program where all of their citizens would be eligible for instead of just their seniors. And we wouldn’t need a Medicaid, or a Children’s Health Insurance Program, because those customers could take Medicare. Which is a much better program anyway.